single particle performance
DESCRIPTION
Single Particle Performance. Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2 nd ILD Workshop @ Cambridge 12-Sep-2008. Topics. Jupiter+Satellites by AM & K.Yoshida. Mokka+MarlinReco by S. Aplin. Jupiter + Satellites/Marlin by AM & T.Takahashi. Mokka+Marlin /Pandora by M.Thomson. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Single Particle Performance
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
2nd ILD Workshop @ Cambridge
12-Sep-2008
22nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
Topics
Momentum Resolution by muon Impact Parameter Resolution by muon
Energy resolution by gamma Energy resolution by kaon_0L
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
Jupiter+Satellitesby AM & K.Yoshida
Jupiter + Satellites/Marlin by AM & T.Takahashi
Mokka+Marlin/Pandoraby M.Thomson
Mokka+MarlinRecoby S. Aplin
32nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
Tracking parameters of Jupiter/Mokka
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
Jupiter Mokka Jupiter Mokka Jupiter Mokka
Model Name gldapr08
LDC-GLD_01
gldprim_v04
LDCPrime_02Sc
j4ldc_v04
LDC01_06Sc
B T 3 3 3.5 3.5 4 4
TPC Drift Region Rmin
cm
43.7 37.1 43.5 37.1 34 37.1
TPC Drift Region Rmax
cm
197.8 193.1 174 173.3 152 151.1
TPC Drift Region HalfZ
cm
260 249.8 235 224.8 216 218.6
# pad rows 256 260 217 227 196 190
2 2
2 2 2
22
2 2 2 2
( )
50 900 sin
(25 / 22) 4 / sin : ( / ),
:
( ) 40 8 ( )
2 : ( m)
B in Tesla
drift length [cm]
r
Z
m P QL
P
Q B m cm
L
m L cm
TPC point resolution
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 3
42nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
Vertex Detector
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
Jupiter Mokka
Model name gldapr08
gldprim_v04
j4ldc_v04 LDC_GLD_01Sc
LDCPrime_02Sc_p01
LDC01_06Sc
Beam Pipe
IR cm 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.55 1.40 1.30
Material Be, 500mmt
VTX
Structure Cylindrical, 3 double layers Ladder
LayerRadius
and
HalfZLength
L1 cm 1.75,7.25
1.6,7.25
1.5,7.25
L1 1.65, 5.0
1.50, 5.0
1.40, 5.0
L2 cm 1.95,7.25
1.8,7.25
1.7,7.25
L2 2.6, 12.5
L3 cm 3.8,13.5
3.7,13.5
3.65,13.5
L3 3.7, 12.5
L4 cm 4.0,13.5
3.9,13.5
3.85,13.5
L4 4.8, 12.5
L5 cm 5.8,13.5
5.8,13.5
5.8,13.5L5 6.0, 12.5
L6 cm 6.0,13.5
6.0,13.5
6.0,13.5
Thickness X0 0.1% RL/layers
Resolution Point Resolution : srf=sz=2.8mm
52nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
Intermediate(Silicon) Tracker- Barrel
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
Jupiter Mokka
gldapr08
gldprim_v04
j4ldc_v04 LDCPrime_02Sc_p01
Structure Cylindrical Cylindrical
LayerRadius &
HalfZLength
L1 cm 9.0, 18.6 9.0, 18.5L1 16.14, 38.0
L2 cm 16.0, 33.0 16.0, 33.0
L3 cm 23.0, 47.5 23.0, 47.5L2 27.01, 66.0
L4 cm 30.0, 62.0 29.0, 62.0
Thickness X0 0.6% RL/layer 0.7%/RL/layer
Point Resolution
srf=sz=10mm srf=3mm, sz=50mm
Momentum Resolution
72nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
Pt resolution
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
LDC : ~5% worse at high Pt Shorter Lever armGLD/GLD’: ~10%worse at low Pt Lower B
Single muon, produced at cosq=0. by Jupiter+Satellites: TPC+IT+VTX fitting
82nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
Pt resolution – Mokka/Pandora
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
LDC01 : worse at high Pt LDC-GLD : worse at low Pt
Single muon, produced at cosq=0.
Similar trends as Jupiter/Satellites
92nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
GLDPrim - LDCPrim
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
LDCPrim(Mokka+Pandora) is better than GLDPrim(Jupiter+Sattelites) by 15~30%.
Possible source: srf(IT) 3mm(LDCPrim) 10mm(GLDPrim) Silicon External Tracker in Mokka
3x10-5
Sub-detector technology is more important than geometry
102nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
D(dPt/Pt) vs Cosq Single Muon
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
1GeV
10GeV
100GeV
lowP j4ldc betterhighP gld/gldprim better 5 ~ 10% differences
112nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
dPt/Pt vs Cosq GLDPrim - LDCPrim
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
Difference smaller in the forward region
Impact Parameter Resolution
132nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
Impact Parameter Resolution(P dep.)
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
J4LDC is better by 5~10%, especially at low P.
Jupiter + Sattelites by K.Yoshida
142nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
Impact Parameter Resolution(P dep.)
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
Difference among models by Jupiter/Satellites and Mokka/MarlinReco are similar LDC better by 5~10% at lowP.
Mokka + Pandora by S.Aplin
152nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
GLDPrim vs LDCPrim (srf(IP))
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
GLDPrim is better than LDCPrim ;
3 double layers vs 5 layers ?
Fast sim. study by M.Berggren
162nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
Impact Parameter Resolution(q dep.)
p=1GeV
Differences among gld/gldprim/j4ldc are ~15% at 1 GeV and smaller at H.E.
172nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
GLDPrim vs LDCPrim (srf(IP))
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
At p=100 GeV, |cosq|>0.0less difference between GLDPrim and LDCPrim ??
Calorimeter Energy Resolution
Jupiter/Mokka Calorimeter Parameters
Jupiter Mokka Jupiter Mokka Jupiter Mokka
Model Name gldapr08
LDCGLD gldprim LDCPrime j4ldc LDC
B T 3 3 3.5 3.5 4 4
ECAL Rmin cm 210 2.02 185 182.5 160 161
ECAL # layers 33 33 20/9 33
ECAL Rad.Length
X0 28.4 28.4 22.87 28.4
HCAL # Layers 46 42 48 37
Int. Length(Total)
l 6.79 6.29 6.86 5.67
HCAL Rmax 361.7 325.0 335.9 285.7
Cryostat Rin 375 330 335.9 300
19Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
ECAL(Jupiter): W(3mm) + Scinti.(2mm) + Gap(1mm), 12-sided no-gap (Mokka):W(2.1mm/4.2mm)+Si(0.32mm), Gap(0.5mm), 8-sided, with-gap
HCAL(Jupiter): Fe(20mm)+Scinti.(5mm)+Gap(1mm), 12-sided, no-gap (Mokka): Fe(20mm)+Scinti.(5mm)+Gap(1.5mm), 8(in)/8(out)-sided, no-gap
202nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
gamma Energy resolution
Same performance in all models.
GLDPrim and LDCPrim same.
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
Calorimeter Energy Resolution
for kaon_0L
222nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
Energy Resolution of kaon_0L
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
dE/E Single kaon_0L|cosq| < 0.5
Casued by Bertini cascadeQGSP switchof LCPhysicsList
Jupiter + Sattelites(Cheated PFA)
232nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
kaon_0L Energy Resolution
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
Not conclusiveresult. - 12~13 GeV - LE/HE behaviour Clustering Algorithm ?
242nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
Point-by-point comparison
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK
Single kaon_0L
Same below ~ 10 GeV, difference at high energy shower leakage
Pulse height distribution: All layers vs up to 31 layers(GLD)
Resolution vs used layers Resolution relative to all layers
k0L, using gldapr08_14m data.gld46layes
gldprim42 layers
j4ldc37 layers
HCAL thickness
Summary
Momentum Resolution of single muon Mokka+MarlinReco and Jupiter+Satellites show similar trend.
4T model is about 10% better than 3.5T/3T model below ~ 10 GeV.
3T(3.5T) models is 5~105% better than 4T model above 10~ 50 GeV.
Sub-detector technologies are more important than geometryLDCPrim is better than GLDPrim by 15 ~ 30%
– w./w.o SET, srf of IT, … matters
Impact parameter Resolution Mokka+MarlinReco and Jupiter+Satellites show similar trend.
At 1GeV (100GeV), 4T model is ~15%(~5%) better than 3T model, 3.5 is in between
GLDPrim is better than J4LDC at cosq=0.Source of difference : 3 double layers better than 5 layers ?
27Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
282nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008
Summary (cont.)
Calorimeter by single particle. Energy resolution of single :g
Difference among gldapr08, gldprim_v04, and j4ldc_v04, LDCPrim are negligible
Energy resolution of k0L;
Resolution can not be determined by fit due to LCPhysicsList feature
By point-by-point comparison, – differences among gld/gld’/j4ldc below ~20 GeV is 5%– at 100 GeV, it is ~20% and can be explained by different
interaction lengthGLD(6.79l) J4LDC(5.67l)
Akiya Miyamoto, KEK